THE EMBRYO DEBATE Catholic MP hits out at Church
Archbishop backs Cardinal hardline
Report: Judith Duffy and Rachelle Money
A CATHOLIC MP has accused his church of showing a "lack of understanding" over controversial embryo research.
Jim Devine, the Labour MP for Livingston, yesterday called for Cardinal Keith O'Brien to meet the scientists involved in the research after the churchman launched a fierce attack on Prime Minister Gordon Brown over what he described as "monstrous" plans, which would allow for the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research purposes.
Devine said he has written to the cardinal calling on him to meet the scientists involved, and said he would be "happy" to set up a meeting between the leading Catholic and Dr Stephen Minger, the director of the stem cell biology laboratory at King's College London who has claimed the cardinal was "misrepresenting science".
Devine, who supports the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, said: "The statements attributed to the cardinal over the past few days highlight a lack of understanding of the process of stem cell biology."
Last week O'Brien, the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, released an extract of a sermon he will use in his Easter Sunday homily today at St Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh, which condemns the government for "not only permitting but encouraging such hideous practices".
Today, he is also calling on Brown to allow Labour MPs a free vote "as the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party have all done".
Supporters of the bill argue that the use of hybrid embryos could lead to cures for diseases including multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's.
Devine said he knew of a man recently diagnosed with multiple sclerosis who may be at St Mary's Cathedral when O'Brien gives his sermon.
He said: "Will the cardinal be able to look him in the eye and say, Not only can we do very little for you today, but the Church is going to ensure that tomorrow is the same'? I don't believe that is the Christian message for Easter."
There was support for O'Brien yesterday from Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow, who said he has been "dismayed by the lack of engagement by MPs in this technically complex but morally crucial issue", and called on politicians to follow their conscience.
He said there were "grave concerns" that the government is attempting to force MPs to support the bill "at the cost of violating their own consciences".
"Such tactics are unworthy of a democratic society," he added.
Conti said he had written to every Scottish MP and has been "deeply disappointed at the lack of response", adding that the Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, had written to Brown about the issue but "hadn't even had the courtesy of an acknowledgment".
"There is a very real frustration in the Catholic community that our deep concerns are not being taken seriously," Conti said. "The cardinal enjoys the support of all the bishops in laying down the stark choice that MPs face - to follow their conscience or follow party diktat."
And he went on to say: "It is disgraceful that MPs should be required to vote in favour of what they believe to be wrong. This is to violate one of the most basic human rights of all, that of freedom of conscience."
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has once again raised questions over the ethics of the research, which will enable scientists to create inter-species hybrids by injecting human DNA into a hollowed-out animal egg cell.
Professor Hugh McLachlan, an expert in bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, argued that the embryo research did not fundamentally breach any ethical principle.
"To say things like it is against human dignity or against human rights, this is pure rhetoric," he said. "I can see no way in which my human dignity or human rights or anyone else's are in any way adversely affected by doing such research.
"It's an idea that people are squeamish about - indeed, I share the squeamishness - but I don't think that is sufficient reason for making the action a criminal offence. There is no human being harmed here."
McLachlan said laws which are introduced should be based on "good reason", and not because an issue is against someone's conscience. But he also said: "If MPs sincerely believe that some particular proposed law is an unwise law and against the best interests of the public, then they should vote against it, whatever the party says. I think the duty of MPs is towards their constituents and the country at large, not the party."
Geoff Hoon, the Labour chief whip, confirmed yesterday that he had received representations from some MPs who want the freedom to vote with their conscience on the bill.
Catholic members of the Cabinet - Welsh secretary Paul Murphy, transport secretary Ruth Kelly and defence secretary Des Browne, who is also the secretary of state for Scotland - are among those reported to be deeply unhappy with the bill.
|
|
Posted by: Observer on 9:48pm Sat 22 Mar 08
I don't like this story. This is not a Catholic issue it is an issue for all of us. The Cardinal has every right to address his flock but why is Jim Devine only addressing the Cardinal ? When it comes to matters of this nature we all have an opinion if there is a debate it should be had with everyone. And I think that there needs to be a debate the implications of this when you think about it are staggering.
I don't like this story. This is not a Catholic issue it is an issue for all of us. The Cardinal has every right to address his flock but why is Jim Devine only addressing the Cardinal ? When it comes to matters of this nature we all have an opinion if there is a debate it should be had with everyone. And I think that there needs to be a debate the implications of this when you think about it are staggering.
Posted by: Observer on 9:51pm Sat 22 Mar 08
To clarify, what I mean is that Jim Devine and others should not assume that it is only Catholics who are deeply concerned about this.
To clarify, what I mean is that Jim Devine and others should not assume that it is only Catholics who are deeply concerned about this.
Posted by: James on 10:18pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Most Catholics understand that a small bundle of cells which must be destroyed after 14 days does not constitute a living being.
People who believe that if this research is stopped in the West it will be stopped everywhere else in the world are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. This research is definitely going to occur, better for the UK that it occurs here.
This research will be properly monitored and the law will be rigorously enforced. Presently a scientist who maintains an embryo alive, unfrozen, for longer than 14 days commits a criminal offence, and could face a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
Most Catholics understand that a small bundle of cells which must be destroyed after 14 days does not constitute a living being.
People who believe that if this research is stopped in the West it will be stopped everywhere else in the world are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. This research is definitely going to occur, better for the UK that it occurs here.
This research will be properly monitored and the law will be rigorously enforced. Presently a scientist who maintains an embryo alive, unfrozen, for longer than 14 days commits a criminal offence, and could face a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
Posted by: Observer on 10:29pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Maybe they do James, do you know ''most Catholics'' ? But you illustrate the point I make very well. Do not make assumptions that this is a purely religious matter it is not. Other people have concerns and do not accept the inevitability of this without further information at the very least.
Maybe they do James, do you know ''most Catholics'' ? But you illustrate the point I make very well. Do not make assumptions that this is a purely religious matter it is not. Other people have concerns and do not accept the inevitability of this without further information at the very least.
Posted by: Scotsgait, www.scotsgait.co.uk on 10:44pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Sometimes we have to say "enough is enough". This is one of these times - and our religion is irrelevant.
_________
Should we allow the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research purposes ? Cast your vote in the latest Scotsgait poll
Sometimes we have to say "enough is enough". This is one of these times - and our religion is irrelevant.
_________
Should we allow the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research purposes ? Cast your vote in the latest Scotsgait poll
Posted by: observer 2 on 11:14pm Sat 22 Mar 08
i wonder if mr divine has disagrements with the cardinal on the other issues the cardinal may be concerned about.
divine's main cause is the labour party
i wonder if mr divine has disagrements with the cardinal on the other issues the cardinal may be concerned about.
divine's main cause is the labour party
Posted by: John, Glasgow on 11:42pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Maybe it is Mr Devine who doesn't really understand the research involved. I believe that research with adult stem cells (which the Church approves) has been very productive and has produced a number of advancements in medicine whereas using embryonic stem cells have produced none. If this is the case then why do scientists want to continue down a road that many find objectionable and is unproductive, when there is a way that is acceptable and productive. What is the agenda?
Maybe it is Mr Devine who doesn't really understand the research involved. I believe that research with adult stem cells (which the Church approves) has been very productive and has produced a number of advancements in medicine whereas using embryonic stem cells have produced none. If this is the case then why do scientists want to continue down a road that many find objectionable and is unproductive, when there is a way that is acceptable and productive. What is the agenda?
Posted by: Strathturret, montrose on 11:44pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Do you remember when Trade Union leaders made pronuncements and were listened to? Now I couldn't even name any leading TU leaders.
I think we should perhaps try this with religious leaders. Ignore them. Nobody voted them in. The Catholic church is not a democracy.
Do you remember when Trade Union leaders made pronuncements and were listened to? Now I couldn't even name any leading TU leaders.
I think we should perhaps try this with religious leaders. Ignore them. Nobody voted them in. The Catholic church is not a democracy.
Posted by: Scamp on 12:05am Sun 23 Mar 08
The best approach when religious leaders try to get involved in this sort of discussion is to pat them gently on the head and ignore them.
The best approach when religious leaders try to get involved in this sort of discussion is to pat them gently on the head and ignore them.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:26am Sun 23 Mar 08
James, don't speak for "most catholics", you don't have the right. And as Observer rightly points out it isn't a catholic only issue anyway.
As for Devine, in his haste to point out that the Cardinal "doesn't understand" what he clearly doesn't understand is that many people are concerned about this issue and it isn't about religion, it is about ethics and dangerous lines being crossed, lines we were assured a long time ago that scientists would never be allowed to cross. This research has already been banned in other countries.
For anyone to suggest that it is a "catholic" issue is ludicrous and is actually highly insulting to those not of that faith. It suggests they don't care! Furthermore reducing the debate to that level ensures only one thing: there will be NO debate. Perhaps that is the main aim.
And of course Devine supports the Bill. He's been told how to vote or else. There's a three line whip on it! And as Keith O'Brien points out, Labour previously allowed a free vote on fox-hunting and the docking of dogs' tails but not on this? It just shows you how high on the list of priorities this sort of experimentation comes compared with foxes and dogs. Worrying really.
James, don't speak for "most catholics", you don't have the right. And as Observer rightly points out it isn't a catholic only issue anyway.
As for Devine, in his haste to point out that the Cardinal "doesn't understand" what he clearly doesn't understand is that many people are concerned about this issue and it isn't about religion, it is about ethics and dangerous lines being crossed, lines we were assured a long time ago that scientists would never be allowed to cross. This research has already been banned in other countries.
For anyone to suggest that it is a "catholic" issue is ludicrous and is actually highly insulting to those not of that faith. It suggests they don't care! Furthermore reducing the debate to that level ensures only one thing: there will be NO debate. Perhaps that is the main aim.
And of course Devine supports the Bill. He's been told how to vote or else. There's a three line whip on it! And as Keith O'Brien points out, Labour previously allowed a free vote on fox-hunting and the docking of dogs' tails but not on this? It just shows you how high on the list of priorities this sort of experimentation comes compared with foxes and dogs. Worrying really.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:32am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Strathturret[/bold] wrote:
Do you remember when Trade Union leaders made pronuncements and were listened to? Now I couldn\'t even name any leading TU leaders. I think we should perhaps try this with religious leaders. Ignore them. Nobody voted them in. The Catholic church is not a democracy.[/quote] Strathy and you are no democrat if you are suggesting you have the right to decide who is worthy of participation in what is a very serious debate. Can you not see the hypocrisy of your statement by accusing a church of being undemocratic while you yourself so clearly resent the participation of all in discussions? Oh why am I even asking that question!
Strathturret wrote:
Do you remember when Trade Union leaders made pronuncements and were listened to? Now I couldn\'t even name any leading TU leaders. I think we should perhaps try this with religious leaders. Ignore them. Nobody voted them in. The Catholic church is not a democracy.
Strathy and you are no democrat if you are suggesting you have the right to decide who is worthy of participation in what is a very serious debate. Can you not see the hypocrisy of your statement by accusing a church of being undemocratic while you yourself so clearly resent the participation of all in discussions? Oh why am I even asking that question!
Posted by: Willie Macleod, Wick on 12:38am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
I don't like this story. This is not a Catholic issue it is an issue for all of us. The Cardinal has every right to address his flock but why is Jim Devine only addressing the Cardinal ? When it comes to matters of this nature we all have an opinion if there is a debate it should be had with everyone. And I think that there needs to be a debate the implications of this when you think about it are staggering.[/quote] You are right this is an issue we all must be involved in Religious or not
Observer wrote:
I don't like this story. This is not a Catholic issue it is an issue for all of us. The Cardinal has every right to address his flock but why is Jim Devine only addressing the Cardinal ? When it comes to matters of this nature we all have an opinion if there is a debate it should be had with everyone. And I think that there needs to be a debate the implications of this when you think about it are staggering.
You are right this is an issue we all must be involved in Religious or not
Posted by: Strathturret, Montrose on 12:42am Sun 23 Mar 08
What I'm saying is are you interested in my opinion on say ... dangerous dogs? I have no expertise on dangerous dogs.
The cardinal has no expertise in medical research, so why are we discussing his views?
A politician is elected. An RC churchman is representative of whom exactly? He is appointed by an autocratic church.
What I'm saying is are you interested in my opinion on say ... dangerous dogs? I have no expertise on dangerous dogs.
The cardinal has no expertise in medical research, so why are we discussing his views?
A politician is elected. An RC churchman is representative of whom exactly? He is appointed by an autocratic church.
Posted by: spanner, glasgow on 12:46am Sun 23 Mar 08
This proposed law is more than just mixing animal and human cells, it also seeks to remove fathers from the baby's records. So, it is more concerned with social engineering. I would think that if any issue is worth asking the people in a poll and not just leaving it to the politicians it is an issue like this.
This proposed law is more than just mixing animal and human cells, it also seeks to remove fathers from the baby's records. So, it is more concerned with social engineering. I would think that if any issue is worth asking the people in a poll and not just leaving it to the politicians it is an issue like this.
Posted by: Frank McBride, lusitania on 12:54am Sun 23 Mar 08
Within this Bill there is a moral and ethical dilemma for everyone; scientists, politicians and the ordinary public. As has been said, this is not about any religous perspective.
Transgenics have already produced sterility in crops and insects.
I am in favour of scientific research but, sometimes I despair of scientist; I am particularly wary of Big Business which will manipulate any situation to make profit.
Because of these concerns, I am against this Bill as it opens the door to Eugenics, in its most virulent form.
However, I am open to persuasion, although it would have to be pretty compelling.
Within this Bill there is a moral and ethical dilemma for everyone; scientists, politicians and the ordinary public. As has been said, this is not about any religous perspective.
Transgenics have already produced sterility in crops and insects.
I am in favour of scientific research but, sometimes I despair of scientist; I am particularly wary of Big Business which will manipulate any situation to make profit.
Because of these concerns, I am against this Bill as it opens the door to Eugenics, in its most virulent form.
However, I am open to persuasion, although it would have to be pretty compelling.
Posted by: Carlo, Inverclyde on 1:18am Sun 23 Mar 08
Is Keith O'Brien really trying to convince his followers and lackeys that medical scientists are intending to produce humans with bovine heads or something like that? Perhaps if he tried to put the science in VERY SHORT WORDS for the faithful, that would help. At the same time, he could explain just how nasty conditions like multiple sclerosis are and that even God-fearing Roman Catholics get them too.
Is Keith O'Brien really trying to convince his followers and lackeys that medical scientists are intending to produce humans with bovine heads or something like that? Perhaps if he tried to put the science in VERY SHORT WORDS for the faithful, that would help. At the same time, he could explain just how nasty conditions like multiple sclerosis are and that even God-fearing Roman Catholics get them too.
Posted by: Cynicus on 1:22am Sun 23 Mar 08
Irrespective of views on the merits or otherwise of this research, does anyone dissent from the view that MPs, of any religious persuasion and none, should be free to vote according to their consciences?
Gordon Brown, in his Stalin control-freak mode insists on a three-line whip, alone of the party leaders. This is all of a piece with New Labour's assault on civil liberties. Even if you oppose the Cardinal's views on all else, uphold him on this one for he -and no elected Labour lobby fodder-is the champion of an open society.
Irrespective of views on the merits or otherwise of this research, does anyone dissent from the view that MPs, of any religious persuasion and none, should be free to vote according to their consciences?
Gordon Brown, in his Stalin control-freak mode insists on a three-line whip, alone of the party leaders. This is all of a piece with New Labour's assault on civil liberties. Even if you oppose the Cardinal's views on all else, uphold him on this one for he -and no elected Labour lobby fodder-is the champion of an open society.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 1:53am Sun 23 Mar 08
This is not about the Catholic church but it seems that no matter how many times this has been repeated on this board some posters insist on making it so. Well, as a non catholic, non religionist I am sickened by this "science" and all the nonsense spouted by its frankenfriends. Having little argument to support their position they resort to patronising insults:
[quote]Perhaps if he tried to put the science in VERY SHORT WORDS for the faithful ...[/quote]
What's so difficult to understand? This is not that complex - it's just sick.
This is not about the Catholic church but it seems that no matter how many times this has been repeated on this board some posters insist on making it so. Well, as a non catholic, non religionist I am sickened by this "science" and all the nonsense spouted by its frankenfriends. Having little argument to support their position they resort to patronising insults:
Perhaps if he tried to put the science in VERY SHORT WORDS for the faithful ...
What's so difficult to understand? This is not that complex - it's just sick.
Posted by: somerferg, perth on 1:59am Sun 23 Mar 08
Spanner - what father?? What Baby??
Spanner - what father?? What Baby??
Posted by: Ross McLean, Edinburgh on 2:05am Sun 23 Mar 08
Assuming this legislation goes ahead, which I think it will, and the research gets underway, it could very well lead to improvements in treatment for diseases like Alzheimers. I'm not saying it will lead to a 'cure,' but that it may lead to improvements in treatment. The question is: if (God forbid) the Bishop himself in future becomes afflicted with this horrible condition, will he refuse medical treatment? I am not trying to be nasty - I believe this is a fair question. Will he refuse treatment on principle? Or indeed if a member of his family - or indeed anyone in his congragation - gets the disease, will he ask them to refuse treatment which may alleviate their suffering? If he doesn't, I'm afraid his moral position is very dodgy. If he does, I'm afraid that tells us all we need to know about the limits of his compassion.
Assuming this legislation goes ahead, which I think it will, and the research gets underway, it could very well lead to improvements in treatment for diseases like Alzheimers. I'm not saying it will lead to a 'cure,' but that it may lead to improvements in treatment. The question is: if (God forbid) the Bishop himself in future becomes afflicted with this horrible condition, will he refuse medical treatment? I am not trying to be nasty - I believe this is a fair question. Will he refuse treatment on principle? Or indeed if a member of his family - or indeed anyone in his congragation - gets the disease, will he ask them to refuse treatment which may alleviate their suffering? If he doesn't, I'm afraid his moral position is very dodgy. If he does, I'm afraid that tells us all we need to know about the limits of his compassion.
Posted by: Scott2006, Outside Glasgow on 2:31am Sun 23 Mar 08
The Cardinal speaks for one branch of one religion, in a world of tens of thousands of religions.
None of the major scientific advances of the last 500 years were appreciated or allowed to be taught as new knowledge unless it conformed to what the church itself believed. All knowledge has to reinforce the central belief.
Galileo and Descartes had to stand up to religious observance that sought to quell new knowledge that disn't happen to be religiously revealed to them. Descartes a devout catholic rejected authority as an arbiter of faith and proclaimed that it had to be discovered through the human intellect - this was recognized as a fundamental challenge to the church and ensured that Descartes was denied a Christian burial.
Galileo was forced to retract a sensible world view which clashed with the church - the Earth moves and rotates around the sun in this solar system... if the Church had never split and Latin was the only language an educated elite could communicate in and everything not directly attributed to archangels or saints was condemned as sinful, such as questioning the grand design of an invisible god would have stymied all medical and intellectual advances.
Human beings are mammals and are animals. We seem to be the most able and best adapted animals in the history of the world. To understand the root causes of malfunctions in the genetic structure of life is a worthwhile avenue to explore. Some new technologies are only scratching the surface of what can and could be possible. In some fields of science, research can take up to 50 years of constant small advances to arrive at a complete understanding of the mechanisms involved.
The Archbishop speaks with the authority of being a good scholar of a 2000 year old book of historical stories.
Western medicine is at a great disadvantage - in the last 200 years it has made great strides in improving the quality of life of ordinary people - without a prerequisite that they follow this faith or that faith.
If medical science does unlock the mechanisms that lead to solving and resolving, the many lives lost to Motor Neuron, and diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimers then that has to be applauded.
What really scares the Church it seems, to me at any rate, is the long view of medical discoveries and advances - test tube babies eg could be inserted into a woman who has never had sex ie a vigin birth.
If cell death can be slowed or changed by ethical means in a country which values such knowledge - eventually - in the realm of science fiction which they seem to quote - is the option of reversing cell death in an adult body... if you can bring a man back to life... you destoy the novelty of the Jesus resurrection story - it might become a common place occurance.
Good.
Science and the better understanding of it serves the future of mankind - a religion that fights against knowledge can only undermine itself.
The Cardinal speaks for one branch of one religion, in a world of tens of thousands of religions.
None of the major scientific advances of the last 500 years were appreciated or allowed to be taught as new knowledge unless it conformed to what the church itself believed. All knowledge has to reinforce the central belief.
Galileo and Descartes had to stand up to religious observance that sought to quell new knowledge that disn't happen to be religiously revealed to them. Descartes a devout catholic rejected authority as an arbiter of faith and proclaimed that it had to be discovered through the human intellect - this was recognized as a fundamental challenge to the church and ensured that Descartes was denied a Christian burial.
Galileo was forced to retract a sensible world view which clashed with the church - the Earth moves and rotates around the sun in this solar system... if the Church had never split and Latin was the only language an educated elite could communicate in and everything not directly attributed to archangels or saints was condemned as sinful, such as questioning the grand design of an invisible god would have stymied all medical and intellectual advances.
Human beings are mammals and are animals. We seem to be the most able and best adapted animals in the history of the world. To understand the root causes of malfunctions in the genetic structure of life is a worthwhile avenue to explore. Some new technologies are only scratching the surface of what can and could be possible. In some fields of science, research can take up to 50 years of constant small advances to arrive at a complete understanding of the mechanisms involved.
The Archbishop speaks with the authority of being a good scholar of a 2000 year old book of historical stories.
Western medicine is at a great disadvantage - in the last 200 years it has made great strides in improving the quality of life of ordinary people - without a prerequisite that they follow this faith or that faith.
If medical science does unlock the mechanisms that lead to solving and resolving, the many lives lost to Motor Neuron, and diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimers then that has to be applauded.
What really scares the Church it seems, to me at any rate, is the long view of medical discoveries and advances - test tube babies eg could be inserted into a woman who has never had sex ie a vigin birth.
If cell death can be slowed or changed by ethical means in a country which values such knowledge - eventually - in the realm of science fiction which they seem to quote - is the option of reversing cell death in an adult body... if you can bring a man back to life... you destoy the novelty of the Jesus resurrection story - it might become a common place occurance.
Good.
Science and the better understanding of it serves the future of mankind - a religion that fights against knowledge can only undermine itself.
Posted by: Doug, Glasgow on 2:38am Sun 23 Mar 08
When electing politicians the fact that they are catholic and will vote as told to do so by their church should be made clear. If you want an MP who will vote in the best interests of all constituants then do not vote for a catholic. This is not bigotry, simply common sense.
When electing politicians the fact that they are catholic and will vote as told to do so by their church should be made clear. If you want an MP who will vote in the best interests of all constituants then do not vote for a catholic. This is not bigotry, simply common sense.
Posted by: Ruglen, rutherglen on 3:21am Sun 23 Mar 08
I hope your readers understand that Jim Devine,MP is a headline-grabbing politician of the worst order. And this 'noise' is yet another example of his self-promotion. So bear in mind this 'background' in analysing his 'views'.
When any contribution he makes is in any way 'intellectual', as we have a right to expect from our elected representatives, there will be two moons in the sky!
I hope your readers understand that Jim Devine,MP is a headline-grabbing politician of the worst order. And this 'noise' is yet another example of his self-promotion. So bear in mind this 'background' in analysing his 'views'.
When any contribution he makes is in any way 'intellectual', as we have a right to expect from our elected representatives, there will be two moons in the sky!
Posted by: Gordon William Marr on 6:20am Sun 23 Mar 08
What about separation of the church and state?
What about separation of the church and state?
Posted by: Bob, Edinburgh on 6:53am Sun 23 Mar 08
All the actors in this story are Scots - the cardinal, the MP, the prime minister. Why isn't this being decided in Scotland?
All the actors in this story are Scots - the cardinal, the MP, the prime minister. Why isn't this being decided in Scotland?
Posted by: Nat Tim, Glasgow on 7:38am Sun 23 Mar 08
Bob,Edinburgh said,
[quote]
All the actors in this story are Scots - the cardinal, the MP, the prime minister. Why isn't this being decided in Scotland?[/quote]
Well said indeed. Then crawling creeps like Jim Devine would have to say out of it.
Bob,Edinburgh said,
All the actors in this story are Scots - the cardinal, the MP, the prime minister. Why isn't this being decided in Scotland?
Well said indeed. Then crawling creeps like Jim Devine would have to say out of it.
Posted by: Vision Kinda Person, Aberdeen on 7:47am Sun 23 Mar 08
[bold]A quintessentially Brit road into the Heart of Darkness .Scientism lies that this is necessary for medical advance,but that is how it also lies about the gross abuse of innocent animals in Labs.There are huge pharmaceutical companies waiting fro mega profits from this. Stop it now.[/bold]
A quintessentially Brit road into the Heart of Darkness .Scientism lies that this is necessary for medical advance,but that is how it also lies about the gross abuse of innocent animals in Labs.There are huge pharmaceutical companies waiting fro mega profits from this. Stop it now. Posted by: Mike MacKinnon on 8:10am Sun 23 Mar 08
Scott 2006 has hit the nail on the head. No matter how much this is discussed, there will always be those for and against. This is one of the few areas of politics where conscience comes in to sway.
Personally, I don't think that experimentation on groups of cells is a problem, but I accept that there are some people who need a religion to think for them. I don't see any living chimera being created nor do I see any plans in this bill to do so. I DO see research on various human diseases being tackled and wonder if the people who are agin this research would accept treatment for their children that had been researched in this way.
Unfortunately, there has always been Luddites in our society. These Luddites, however, have never been slow to take up the benefits of the research etc. that they're agin!
And please folks! Stop talking about te 'majority of people,' the 'majority of Catholics' etc. Unless you can point to some empirical study, of course?
Scott 2006 has hit the nail on the head. No matter how much this is discussed, there will always be those for and against. This is one of the few areas of politics where conscience comes in to sway.
Personally, I don't think that experimentation on groups of cells is a problem, but I accept that there are some people who need a religion to think for them. I don't see any living chimera being created nor do I see any plans in this bill to do so. I DO see research on various human diseases being tackled and wonder if the people who are agin this research would accept treatment for their children that had been researched in this way.
Unfortunately, there has always been Luddites in our society. These Luddites, however, have never been slow to take up the benefits of the research etc. that they're agin!
And please folks! Stop talking about te 'majority of people,' the 'majority of Catholics' etc. Unless you can point to some empirical study, of course?
Posted by: heady on 8:27am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
To clarify, what I mean is that Jim Devine and others should not assume that it is only Catholics who are deeply concerned about this. [/quote] But credit were it is due, Devine is standing up and saying he does not take orders from a certain former Hitler Youth member - that's got to be a good thing.
PS. Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
Observer wrote:
To clarify, what I mean is that Jim Devine and others should not assume that it is only Catholics who are deeply concerned about this.
But credit were it is due, Devine is standing up and saying he does not take orders from a certain former Hitler Youth member - that's got to be a good thing.
PS. Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
Posted by: heady on 8:29am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Strathturret[/bold] wrote:
Do you remember when Trade Union leaders made pronuncements and were listened to? Now I couldn't even name any leading TU leaders. I think we should perhaps try this with religious leaders. Ignore them. Nobody voted them in. The Catholic church is not a democracy.[/quote] Yes, but irrational and greedy business leaders are still kowtowed to by politicians, time they were consigned to the pyre.
PS. Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
Strathturret wrote:
Do you remember when Trade Union leaders made pronuncements and were listened to? Now I couldn't even name any leading TU leaders. I think we should perhaps try this with religious leaders. Ignore them. Nobody voted them in. The Catholic church is not a democracy.
Yes, but irrational and greedy business leaders are still kowtowed to by politicians, time they were consigned to the pyre.
PS. Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
Posted by: bill, england on 8:31am Sun 23 Mar 08
Why the surprise?
Our government acting in our name legalised abortion in such a way as to open the flood gates for the murder millions of unborn children.
They were party to illegal operations in the middle east, resulting in the murder of millions of people of all ages.
Now they have gone even further; they are sanctioning the creation of children so they can be experimented on and destroyed in the name of science.
We are given life, a beautiful country and a culture which is the envy of the rest of the world, and we are literally hell-bent on the destruction of all three.
How sick can we get?
Why the surprise?
Our government acting in our name legalised abortion in such a way as to open the flood gates for the murder millions of unborn children.
They were party to illegal operations in the middle east, resulting in the murder of millions of people of all ages.
Now they have gone even further; they are sanctioning the creation of children so they can be experimented on and destroyed in the name of science.
We are given life, a beautiful country and a culture which is the envy of the rest of the world, and we are literally hell-bent on the destruction of all three.
How sick can we get?
Posted by: heady on 8:45am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]bill, england[/bold] wrote:
Why the surprise? Our government acting in our name legalised abortion in such a way as to open the flood gates for the murder millions of unborn children. They were party to illegal operations in the middle east, resulting in the murder of millions of people of all ages. Now they have gone even further; they are sanctioning the creation of children so they can be experimented on and destroyed in the name of science. We are given life, a beautiful country and a culture which is the envy of the rest of the world, and we are literally hell-bent on the destruction of all three. How sick can we get? [/quote] Ah, yes, the unborn children. Given the number of sperm and eggs in the world the number of potential children who do not come into being must run into the billions of billions every few days, and who is to blame for all these sperm failing to form a meaningful relationship with all these eggs - why God of course. Can we sue?
bill, england wrote:
Why the surprise? Our government acting in our name legalised abortion in such a way as to open the flood gates for the murder millions of unborn children. They were party to illegal operations in the middle east, resulting in the murder of millions of people of all ages. Now they have gone even further; they are sanctioning the creation of children so they can be experimented on and destroyed in the name of science. We are given life, a beautiful country and a culture which is the envy of the rest of the world, and we are literally hell-bent on the destruction of all three. How sick can we get?
Ah, yes, the unborn children. Given the number of sperm and eggs in the world the number of potential children who do not come into being must run into the billions of billions every few days, and who is to blame for all these sperm failing to form a meaningful relationship with all these eggs - why God of course. Can we sue?
Posted by: Ian M, North Ayrshire on 8:55am Sun 23 Mar 08
Sadly there will be many distorted views on this issue simply because it involves the Catholic Church.
Sadly there will be many distorted views on this issue simply because it involves the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Heavy George on 8:59am Sun 23 Mar 08
Joint Open Letter on behalf of the Hard of Understanding Party -
We blame the Masonic conspiracy that runs the Social Work department and the Catholic Church (is this right?) and the highly secret society of lawyers who publicly go around trying to bankrupt everyone in the hope no one notices. (Don't forget ugly women and homosexuals (so called "gay men", what a misuse of a lovely old word) who cause the earthquakes). The people of Scotland must resist the conspiracy of Masons who make up the majority of the population of Scotland (is this right?).
Heavy
JIPPI: "SCOTLAND STAND UP TO LAWYERS"
and
Georgie
The Campaign for Human Interaction at Glasgow Caledonian
Joint Open Letter on behalf of the Hard of Understanding Party -
We blame the Masonic conspiracy that runs the Social Work department and the Catholic Church (is this right?) and the highly secret society of lawyers who publicly go around trying to bankrupt everyone in the hope no one notices. (Don't forget ugly women and homosexuals (so called "gay men", what a misuse of a lovely old word) who cause the earthquakes). The people of Scotland must resist the conspiracy of Masons who make up the majority of the population of Scotland (is this right?).
Heavy
JIPPI: "SCOTLAND STAND UP TO LAWYERS"
and
Georgie
The Campaign for Human Interaction at Glasgow Caledonian
Posted by: Wee Sue on 9:01am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]heady[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bill, england[/bold] wrote: Why the surprise? Our government acting in our name legalised abortion in such a way as to open the flood gates for the murder millions of unborn children. They were party to illegal operations in the middle east, resulting in the murder of millions of people of all ages. Now they have gone even further; they are sanctioning the creation of children so they can be experimented on and destroyed in the name of science. We are given life, a beautiful country and a culture which is the envy of the rest of the world, and we are literally hell-bent on the destruction of all three. How sick can we get? [/quote] Ah, yes, the unborn children. Given the number of sperm and eggs in the world the number of potential children who do not come into being must run into the billions of billions every few days, and who is to blame for all these sperm failing to form a meaningful relationship with all these eggs - why God of course. Can we sue?[/quote] Can Wee Sue do what?
heady wrote:
bill, england wrote: Why the surprise? Our government acting in our name legalised abortion in such a way as to open the flood gates for the murder millions of unborn children. They were party to illegal operations in the middle east, resulting in the murder of millions of people of all ages. Now they have gone even further; they are sanctioning the creation of children so they can be experimented on and destroyed in the name of science. We are given life, a beautiful country and a culture which is the envy of the rest of the world, and we are literally hell-bent on the destruction of all three. How sick can we get?
Ah, yes, the unborn children. Given the number of sperm and eggs in the world the number of potential children who do not come into being must run into the billions of billions every few days, and who is to blame for all these sperm failing to form a meaningful relationship with all these eggs - why God of course. Can we sue?
Can Wee Sue do what?
Posted by: NumptyHeid1952, Oblivion on 9:23am Sun 23 Mar 08
Is it ok for people to force their beliefs or doctrine on others when it has little if no affect on them, NO! I pray every day for a cure to my "terminal" decline of MND. They have no right to tell me to go away and die because it would offend their senses. If ity was their mother or father, child or wife would they be so holy and pious, I doubt it very much. A drowning man clutches at straws and if this is my straw, do not take it away from me.
ps.
I normally post here under a different name.
Is it ok for people to force their beliefs or doctrine on others when it has little if no affect on them, NO! I pray every day for a cure to my "terminal" decline of MND. They have no right to tell me to go away and die because it would offend their senses. If ity was their mother or father, child or wife would they be so holy and pious, I doubt it very much. A drowning man clutches at straws and if this is my straw, do not take it away from me.
ps.
I normally post here under a different name.
Posted by: FPG, Lothian on 9:24am Sun 23 Mar 08
Let's not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who [bold]don't want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient's life thus making money[/bold] . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it's 'good for us'.
Let's not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who
don't want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient's life thus making money . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it's 'good for us'.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 9:29am Sun 23 Mar 08
Does the Bish think that it will make any difference if it's banned in the UK? It is going to happen somewhere whether he likes it or not, as there are plenty of places around the world where the Bish and his likes are irrelevant.
As for animal/human argument doesn't he know that humans are just another ape and share 99% of our genes with out primate cousins. Or is he still of the belief that the human race is somehow unique and apart from this world?
Does the Bish think that it will make any difference if it's banned in the UK? It is going to happen somewhere whether he likes it or not, as there are plenty of places around the world where the Bish and his likes are irrelevant.
As for animal/human argument doesn't he know that humans are just another ape and share 99% of our genes with out primate cousins. Or is he still of the belief that the human race is somehow unique and apart from this world?
Posted by: Derek Jones, England on 9:31am Sun 23 Mar 08
[bold]bold[/bold] Jim Divine says he is a Catholic who supports this Bill, BUT he has already voted against counselling for women seeking abortion. His vote on that indicates he is not pro life, and if he is not pro life he is not a Catholic. He has excommunicated himself. He's being ecconomical with the truth.[bold]bold[/bold] [quote]quote[/quote]
Jim Divine says he is a Catholic who supports this Bill, BUT he has already voted against counselling for women seeking abortion. His vote on that indicates he is not pro life, and if he is not pro life he is not a Catholic. He has excommunicated himself. He's being ecconomical with the truth.
quote
Posted by: NumptyHeid1952, Oblivion on 9:32am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]FPG[/bold] wrote:
Let's not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who [bold]don't want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient's life thus making money[/bold] . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it's 'good for us'.[/quote] I am not kidding myself about anything and you digress from the issue. The issue is do I want everything humanly possible to be done to help me and others in my situation. YES is the answer. Now do you want everything humanly possible to be done to help me?
FPG wrote:
Let's not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who don't want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient's life thus making money . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it's 'good for us'.
I am not kidding myself about anything and you digress from the issue. The issue is do I want everything humanly possible to be done to help me and others in my situation. YES is the answer. Now do you want everything humanly possible to be done to help me?
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 9:40am Sun 23 Mar 08
A question for the Bish!
You're happy to live by a book created three thousand years ago, in a much different world and circumstances. Are you also be prepared to also live by three thousand year old technology?
Answer: No. So why then do you insist on imposing you dark ages mumbo jumbo on a modern world?
It is science that has brought civilisation to this time and place, not the catholic church. Remember it was you that persecuted Galileo, tried to prevent the introduction of the printing press to Europe and then tried to contol it once it had been. If the church had it's way medecine would still be in the dark ages, education would be just for the wealthy and the church and the rest of us would still be serfs.
A question for the Bish!
You're happy to live by a book created three thousand years ago, in a much different world and circumstances. Are you also be prepared to also live by three thousand year old technology?
Answer: No. So why then do you insist on imposing you dark ages mumbo jumbo on a modern world?
It is science that has brought civilisation to this time and place, not the catholic church. Remember it was you that persecuted Galileo, tried to prevent the introduction of the printing press to Europe and then tried to contol it once it had been. If the church had it's way medecine would still be in the dark ages, education would be just for the wealthy and the church and the rest of us would still be serfs.
Posted by: NumptyHeid952, Oblivion on 9:43am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]McSomeone[/bold] wrote:
A question for the Bish! You're happy to live by a book created three thousand years ago, in a much different world and circumstances. Are you also be prepared to also live by three thousand year old technology? Answer: No. So why then do you insist on imposing you dark ages mumbo jumbo on a modern world? It is science that has brought civilisation to this time and place, not the catholic church. Remember it was you that persecuted Galileo, tried to prevent the introduction of the printing press to Europe and then tried to contol it once it had been. If the church had it's way medecine would still be in the dark ages, education would be just for the wealthy and the church and the rest of us would still be serfs.[/quote] Well said McSomeone.
McSomeone wrote:
A question for the Bish! You're happy to live by a book created three thousand years ago, in a much different world and circumstances. Are you also be prepared to also live by three thousand year old technology? Answer: No. So why then do you insist on imposing you dark ages mumbo jumbo on a modern world? It is science that has brought civilisation to this time and place, not the catholic church. Remember it was you that persecuted Galileo, tried to prevent the introduction of the printing press to Europe and then tried to contol it once it had been. If the church had it's way medecine would still be in the dark ages, education would be just for the wealthy and the church and the rest of us would still be serfs.
Well said McSomeone.
Posted by: Al on 9:53am Sun 23 Mar 08
Keep your religion out of my life. If you don't agree with this research, don't accept any treatments that come from it. Don't try and stop others from receiving the benefits.
This is the problem with religion interfering with politics and science, which religion do we listen to? There are hundreds of them. Do we only listen to the most popular religion?
Let the religious apply it to their own life and butt out of everyone elses.
Keep your religion out of my life. If you don't agree with this research, don't accept any treatments that come from it. Don't try and stop others from receiving the benefits.
This is the problem with religion interfering with politics and science, which religion do we listen to? There are hundreds of them. Do we only listen to the most popular religion?
Let the religious apply it to their own life and butt out of everyone elses.
Posted by: Rollo Tommasi, Edinburgh on 9:57am Sun 23 Mar 08
I don't see why there can't be a free vote on this issue.
But Derek Jones shows the true hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's position when he says Jim Devine's [quote]vote on that indicates he is not pro life, and if he is not pro life he is not a Catholic. He has excommunicated himself.[/quote]
So am I to take it that the Archbishops want to force Brown to withdraw his -line whip on MPs so they can impose their own 3-line whip on Catholic MPs instead? what kind of "free vote" is that?
I don't see why there can't be a free vote on this issue.
But Derek Jones shows the true hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's position when he says Jim Devine's
vote on that indicates he is not pro life, and if he is not pro life he is not a Catholic. He has excommunicated himself.
So am I to take it that the Archbishops want to force Brown to withdraw his -line whip on MPs so they can impose their own 3-line whip on Catholic MPs instead? what kind of "free vote" is that?
Posted by: spagan, Heisker on 10:02am Sun 23 Mar 08
Their already plenty of humans who have sheep's brains - and religiously follow whatever religious "leaders" tell them.
If anyone in the Cabinet happens to be in Opus Dei, who are they working for? Us? Gordon?
If they want to resign and vote "with their conscience" - let them resign their posts and do so.
Slainte Mhor
Their already plenty of humans who have sheep's brains - and religiously follow whatever religious "leaders" tell them.
If anyone in the Cabinet happens to be in Opus Dei, who are they working for? Us? Gordon?
If they want to resign and vote "with their conscience" - let them resign their posts and do so.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 10:11am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote]If anyone in the Cabinet happens to be in Opus Dei, who are they working for? Us? Gordon? If they want to resign and vote "with their conscience" - let them resign their posts and do so.[/quote]
Ask anyone brought up in a catholic orphanage and they will tell you that they instill in you that your first and foremost loyalty is to the vatican, all else is secondary. To refuse an injunction by any member of the clergy is a capital sin.
If anyone in the Cabinet happens to be in Opus Dei, who are they working for? Us? Gordon? If they want to resign and vote "with their conscience" - let them resign their posts and do so.
Ask anyone brought up in a catholic orphanage and they will tell you that they instill in you that your first and foremost loyalty is to the vatican, all else is secondary. To refuse an injunction by any member of the clergy is a capital sin.
Posted by: FPG, Lothian on 10:16am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]NumptyHeid1952[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]FPG[/bold] wrote: Let\\\\\\\'s not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who [bold]don\\\\\\\'t want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient\\\\\\\'s life thus making money[/bold] . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it\\\\\\\'s \\\\\\\'good for us\\\\\\\'.[/quote] I am not kidding myself about anything and you digress from the issue. The issue is do I want everything humanly possible to be done to help me and others in my situation. YES is the answer. Now do you want everything humanly possible to be done to help me?[/quote] I wasn't actually addressing you personally, Numptyheid, but I'll do so now.
You are being deluded. You are being sold false hope. I would be tempted to answer 'yes' to your question if we were witnessing a genuine attempt to cure illness, though I would still have great reservations about the morality and potential abuse of the embryonic research. But this is not about finding cures. It is about freeing the likes of Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer from the current framework that inhibits them from making even more profit than they currently do. Cures don't make money.
I am sorry you are ill, but the proposed research is unlikely to find you a cure if, as it seems likely, it is allowed to progress.
NumptyHeid1952 wrote:
FPG wrote: Let\\\\'s not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who don\\\\'t want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient\\\\'s life thus making money . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it\\\\'s \\\\'good for us\\\\'.
I am not kidding myself about anything and you digress from the issue. The issue is do I want everything humanly possible to be done to help me and others in my situation. YES is the answer. Now do you want everything humanly possible to be done to help me?
I wasn't actually addressing you personally, Numptyheid, but I'll do so now.
You are being deluded. You are being sold false hope. I would be tempted to answer 'yes' to your question if we were witnessing a genuine attempt to cure illness, though I would still have great reservations about the morality and potential abuse of the embryonic research. But this is not about finding cures. It is about freeing the likes of Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer from the current framework that inhibits them from making even more profit than they currently do. Cures don't make money.
I am sorry you are ill, but the proposed research is unlikely to find you a cure if, as it seems likely, it is allowed to progress.
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 10:21am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]FPG[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]NumptyHeid1952[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]FPG[/bold] wrote: Let\\\\\\\'s not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who [bold]don\\\\\\\'t want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient\\\\\\\'s life thus making money[/bold] . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it\\\\\\\'s \\\\\\\'good for us\\\\\\\'.[/quote] I am not kidding myself about anything and you digress from the issue. The issue is do I want everything humanly possible to be done to help me and others in my situation. YES is the answer. Now do you want everything humanly possible to be done to help me?[/quote] I wasn't actually addressing you personally, Numptyheid, but I'll do so now. You are being deluded. You are being sold false hope. I would be tempted to answer 'yes' to your question if we were witnessing a genuine attempt to cure illness, though I would still have great reservations about the morality and potential abuse of the embryonic research. But this is not about finding cures. It is about freeing the likes of Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer from the current framework that inhibits them from making even more profit than they currently do. Cures don't make money. I am sorry you are ill, but the proposed research is unlikely to find you a cure if, as it seems likely, it is allowed to progress.[/quote] What a silly post. This research is precisely about finding cures, or better treatments, for diseases like Parkinson's and MND.
On what expert opionion do you opine this line of research is unlikely to find a cure? It is one line of research, there are many others, including other genetic therapies and more "conventional" structure based drug design, all should be explored.
FPG wrote:
NumptyHeid1952 wrote: FPG wrote: Let\\\\'s not kid ourselves that ordinary people, struck with MS and other nasty illnesses, will benefit from the proposed research. The winners in this debate will be the multi-national drugs companies who don\\\\'t want to cure illness, only treat it throughout the patient\\\\'s life thus making money . Lots of money. As ever, Gordon Brown sides with big business whilst perpetuating the myth that it\\\\'s \\\\'good for us\\\\'.
I am not kidding myself about anything and you digress from the issue. The issue is do I want everything humanly possible to be done to help me and others in my situation. YES is the answer. Now do you want everything humanly possible to be done to help me?
I wasn't actually addressing you personally, Numptyheid, but I'll do so now. You are being deluded. You are being sold false hope. I would be tempted to answer 'yes' to your question if we were witnessing a genuine attempt to cure illness, though I would still have great reservations about the morality and potential abuse of the embryonic research. But this is not about finding cures. It is about freeing the likes of Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer from the current framework that inhibits them from making even more profit than they currently do. Cures don't make money. I am sorry you are ill, but the proposed research is unlikely to find you a cure if, as it seems likely, it is allowed to progress.
What a silly post. This research is precisely about finding cures, or better treatments, for diseases like Parkinson's and MND.
On what expert opionion do you opine this line of research is unlikely to find a cure? It is one line of research, there are many others, including other genetic therapies and more "conventional" structure based drug design, all should be explored.
Posted by: rorie, alloa on 10:26am Sun 23 Mar 08
why doesn't the catholic church mind its own business.
why doesn't the catholic church mind its own business.
Posted by: Vronsky, Scotland on 10:27am Sun 23 Mar 08
[bold]heady says:[/bold]
[quote]Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
[/quote]
This is very noticeable, and I've mentioned it in posts myself. The Herald is allegedly run on a shoestring, which might explain poor performance from underpowered web servers - and a lot else?
On the topic: it's a pity the church got involved with this, just as it's a pity when they get involved with anything. It always makes the water muddy, and positions become entrenched, making progress to any useful conclusion difficult. It's not so long since they opposed the use of anaesthesia for women in labour.
The cardinal's statements will have at least two effects: some people will agree simply because they are Catholics, and others will disagree simply because they are not. Informed debate is the loser either way.
Only one poster I can see mentions an indisputable risk of stem cell research: money from Big Pharma forcing the research agenda. We've already seen this with the proliferation of bioscience research in Scotland, corrupting every academic institution from the Royal Society on downwards. Large cash contributions to New Labour by giants like Syngenta is probably a better explanation of Jim Devine's anxiety than any concern for the advancement of medical science.
It's a vast and frightening subject. For some starter reading look here:
http://tinyurl.com/3
4lxlc
Or get [italic]Don't worry, it's safe to eat[/italic] by Andrew Rowell - reviewed here:
http://tinyurl.com/2
q6r8o
No, I'm not Andy Rowell.
heady says:
Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
This is very noticeable, and I've mentioned it in posts myself. The Herald is allegedly run on a shoestring, which might explain poor performance from underpowered web servers - and a lot else?
On the topic: it's a pity the church got involved with this, just as it's a pity when they get involved with anything. It always makes the water muddy, and positions become entrenched, making progress to any useful conclusion difficult. It's not so long since they opposed the use of anaesthesia for women in labour.
The cardinal's statements will have at least two effects: some people will agree simply because they are Catholics, and others will disagree simply because they are not. Informed debate is the loser either way.
Only one poster I can see mentions an indisputable risk of stem cell research: money from Big Pharma forcing the research agenda. We've already seen this with the proliferation of bioscience research in Scotland, corrupting every academic institution from the Royal Society on downwards. Large cash contributions to New Labour by giants like Syngenta is probably a better explanation of Jim Devine's anxiety than any concern for the advancement of medical science.
It's a vast and frightening subject. For some starter reading look here:
http://tinyurl.com/3
4lxlc
Or get
Don't worry, it's safe to eat by Andrew Rowell - reviewed here:
http://tinyurl.com/2
q6r8o
No, I'm not Andy Rowell.
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 10:35am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Vronsky[/bold] wrote:
[bold]heady says:[/bold] [quote]Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster? [/quote] This is very noticeable, and I've mentioned it in posts myself. The Herald is allegedly run on a shoestring, which might explain poor performance from underpowered web servers - and a lot else? On the topic: it's a pity the church got involved with this, just as it's a pity when they get involved with anything. It always makes the water muddy, and positions become entrenched, making progress to any useful conclusion difficult. It's not so long since they opposed the use of anaesthesia for women in labour. The cardinal's statements will have at least two effects: some people will agree simply because they are Catholics, and others will disagree simply because they are not. Informed debate is the loser either way. Only one poster I can see mentions an indisputable risk of stem cell research: money from Big Pharma forcing the research agenda. We've already seen this with the proliferation of bioscience research in Scotland, corrupting every academic institution from the Royal Society on downwards. Large cash contributions to New Labour by giants like Syngenta is probably a better explanation of Jim Devine's anxiety than any concern for the advancement of medical science. It's a vast and frightening subject. For some starter reading look here: http://tinyurl.com/3 4lxlc Or get [italic]Don't worry, it's safe to eat[/italic] by Andrew Rowell - reviewed here: http://tinyurl.com/2 q6r8o No, I'm not Andy Rowell. [/quote] Good points. The broader issues would be about ensuring appropriate funding for academic, fundamental research that is not directed by big-Pharma, and whose output is openly published and not patented. The research councils have long shifted to funding research with commercial application. Diseases of the Western world, such as cancer and heart disease, are well researched. But disease prevalent in the developing world, such as schistosomiasis or malaria, which in theory could be more easily treated, are under-researched precisely because treatments would have no patients able to pay high prices for them. Only fundamental research funded on humanitarian priorities stands much chance of developing treatments, as big-Pharma makes more money from affective mood disorders of the Western world than it would from curing such diseases.
Vronsky wrote:
heady says: Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
This is very noticeable, and I've mentioned it in posts myself. The Herald is allegedly run on a shoestring, which might explain poor performance from underpowered web servers - and a lot else? On the topic: it's a pity the church got involved with this, just as it's a pity when they get involved with anything. It always makes the water muddy, and positions become entrenched, making progress to any useful conclusion difficult. It's not so long since they opposed the use of anaesthesia for women in labour. The cardinal's statements will have at least two effects: some people will agree simply because they are Catholics, and others will disagree simply because they are not. Informed debate is the loser either way. Only one poster I can see mentions an indisputable risk of stem cell research: money from Big Pharma forcing the research agenda. We've already seen this with the proliferation of bioscience research in Scotland, corrupting every academic institution from the Royal Society on downwards. Large cash contributions to New Labour by giants like Syngenta is probably a better explanation of Jim Devine's anxiety than any concern for the advancement of medical science. It's a vast and frightening subject. For some starter reading look here: http://tinyurl.com/3 4lxlc Or get Don't worry, it's safe to eat by Andrew Rowell - reviewed here: http://tinyurl.com/2 q6r8o No, I'm not Andy Rowell.
Good points. The broader issues would be about ensuring appropriate funding for academic, fundamental research that is not directed by big-Pharma, and whose output is openly published and not patented. The research councils have long shifted to funding research with commercial application. Diseases of the Western world, such as cancer and heart disease, are well researched. But disease prevalent in the developing world, such as schistosomiasis or malaria, which in theory could be more easily treated, are under-researched precisely because treatments would have no patients able to pay high prices for them. Only fundamental research funded on humanitarian priorities stands much chance of developing treatments, as big-Pharma makes more money from affective mood disorders of the Western world than it would from curing such diseases.
Posted by: wullie on 10:46am Sun 23 Mar 08
There is a fundamental issue at the heart of this and that is the destruction of an embryo.
Jim Devine's comment that the cardinal lacks understanding is outrageou, but of course as a politician, attacks like this are his stock and trade.
Of course, it comes as no surprise that Mr Devine's boss Big Gordon is not allowing a free vote on the matter.
Ah, New labour, the party of debate, discussion and choice and in whose pockets do they lie.
There is a fundamental issue at the heart of this and that is the destruction of an embryo.
Jim Devine's comment that the cardinal lacks understanding is outrageou, but of course as a politician, attacks like this are his stock and trade.
Of course, it comes as no surprise that Mr Devine's boss Big Gordon is not allowing a free vote on the matter.
Ah, New labour, the party of debate, discussion and choice and in whose pockets do they lie.
Posted by: madme, Glasgow on 10:49am Sun 23 Mar 08
Why do people when a religious leader addresses his congregation and the media pick it up blame the religious leader for trying to force his views on society. My understanding is this debate started by Cardinal O'Brien’s Easter Message to the Catholics of Scotland, it is the media that have picked it up, which suggests that this is probably a hot issue.
The Cardinal has asked for the MP's to have a free vote, and why should this be a problem, I have never fully understood why a democracy should have 3-line whips anyway.
He has also written to MP's and the PM, and invited others to do the same - something we are all free to do on any matter.
Not being a religious person I am happy the media have picked up the Cardinals comments and opened the debate, as debate is good on any subject. The question that is really being asked here is, is scientific research and advancement a good idea at any cost, I am becoming increasingly of the opinion No and therefore we do need to keep control on some scientists.
In this debate, as in all life debates, the Cardinal is of the belief that life becomes life at the very beginning and therefore, in this instance, we are creating life that is a mix of human and other species, the Cardinal would argue that this is life even if it will be destroyed not long after. Others would argue differently, and debate on this is a very good thing.
I also would suggest the Cardinal is looking for a free vote on this and although he may try and influence MP's in their voting, so can and should all of us no matter what side of the debate we are on that is how our democracy works. And in that sense the leader of a Church that can be dictatorial is actually suggesting more freedom than our PM.
(There is also a question of if the scientist can be relied to destroy the embryo after 14days - I can imagine one or two trying to take this further)
Madme
Why do people when a religious leader addresses his congregation and the media pick it up blame the religious leader for trying to force his views on society. My understanding is this debate started by Cardinal O'Brien’s Easter Message to the Catholics of Scotland, it is the media that have picked it up, which suggests that this is probably a hot issue.
The Cardinal has asked for the MP's to have a free vote, and why should this be a problem, I have never fully understood why a democracy should have 3-line whips anyway.
He has also written to MP's and the PM, and invited others to do the same - something we are all free to do on any matter.
Not being a religious person I am happy the media have picked up the Cardinals comments and opened the debate, as debate is good on any subject. The question that is really being asked here is, is scientific research and advancement a good idea at any cost, I am becoming increasingly of the opinion No and therefore we do need to keep control on some scientists.
In this debate, as in all life debates, the Cardinal is of the belief that life becomes life at the very beginning and therefore, in this instance, we are creating life that is a mix of human and other species, the Cardinal would argue that this is life even if it will be destroyed not long after. Others would argue differently, and debate on this is a very good thing.
I also would suggest the Cardinal is looking for a free vote on this and although he may try and influence MP's in their voting, so can and should all of us no matter what side of the debate we are on that is how our democracy works. And in that sense the leader of a Church that can be dictatorial is actually suggesting more freedom than our PM.
(There is also a question of if the scientist can be relied to destroy the embryo after 14days - I can imagine one or two trying to take this further)
Madme
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 10:51am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]wullie[/bold] wrote:
There is a fundamental issue at the heart of this and that is the destruction of an embryo. Jim Devine's comment that the cardinal lacks understanding is outrageou, but of course as a politician, attacks like this are his stock and trade. Of course, it comes as no surprise that Mr Devine's boss Big Gordon is not allowing a free vote on the matter. Ah, New labour, the party of debate, discussion and choice and in whose pockets do they lie.[/quote] There is the use of a non-viable animal embryo cell to cultivate human stem cells. Just as embryonic stem research has utilised stem cells harvested from aborted foetuses, or fertilised feotuses which would have been disposed of anyway.
wullie wrote:
There is a fundamental issue at the heart of this and that is the destruction of an embryo. Jim Devine's comment that the cardinal lacks understanding is outrageou, but of course as a politician, attacks like this are his stock and trade. Of course, it comes as no surprise that Mr Devine's boss Big Gordon is not allowing a free vote on the matter. Ah, New labour, the party of debate, discussion and choice and in whose pockets do they lie.
There is the use of a non-viable animal embryo cell to cultivate human stem cells. Just as embryonic stem research has utilised stem cells harvested from aborted foetuses, or fertilised feotuses which would have been disposed of anyway.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 10:56am Sun 23 Mar 08
Would you trust Blair's Babes not to clone themselves to boost their falling membership?
Would you trust Blair's Babes not to clone themselves to boost their falling membership?
Posted by: Rob on 10:58am Sun 23 Mar 08
The posters above are right - this isn't a Catholic issue. Which is why I will be paying considerably more attention to the views of scientists and other concerned professionals in this field.
And on a side note, I don't recall the RCs whinging too much when the Scottish Labour party jumped on their command.
The posters above are right - this isn't a Catholic issue. Which is why I will be paying considerably more attention to the views of scientists and other concerned professionals in this field.
And on a side note, I don't recall the RCs whinging too much when the Scottish Labour party jumped on their command.
Posted by: FPG, Lothian on 10:58am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]AyrshireScot[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Vronsky[/bold] wrote: [bold]heady says:[/bold] [quote]Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster? [/quote] This is very noticeable, and I\'ve mentioned it in posts myself. The Herald is allegedly run on a shoestring, which might explain poor performance from underpowered web servers - and a lot else? On the topic: it\'s a pity the church got involved with this, just as it\'s a pity when they get involved with anything. It always makes the water muddy, and positions become entrenched, making progress to any useful conclusion difficult. It\'s not so long since they opposed the use of anaesthesia for women in labour. The cardinal\'s statements will have at least two effects: some people will agree simply because they are Catholics, and others will disagree simply because they are not. Informed debate is the loser either way. Only one poster I can see mentions an indisputable risk of stem cell research: money from Big Pharma forcing the research agenda. We\'ve already seen this with the proliferation of bioscience research in Scotland, corrupting every academic institution from the Royal Society on downwards. Large cash contributions to New Labour by giants like Syngenta is probably a better explanation of Jim Devine\'s anxiety than any concern for the advancement of medical science. It\'s a vast and frightening subject. For some starter reading look here: http://tinyurl.com/3 4lxlc Or get [italic]Don\'t worry, it\'s safe to eat[/italic] by Andrew Rowell - reviewed here: http://tinyurl.com/2 q6r8o No, I\'m not Andy Rowell. [/quote] Good points. The broader issues would be about ensuring appropriate funding for academic, fundamental research that is not directed by big-Pharma, and whose output is openly published and not patented. The research councils have long shifted to funding research with commercial application. Diseases of the Western world, such as cancer and heart disease, are well researched. But disease prevalent in the developing world, such as schistosomiasis or malaria, which in theory could be more easily treated, are under-researched precisely because treatments would have no patients able to pay high prices for them. Only fundamental research funded on humanitarian priorities stands much chance of developing treatments, as big-Pharma makes more money from affective mood disorders of the Western world than it would from curing such diseases.[/quote] So despite my 'silly (but at least well mannered) post' you agree with me then that it's all about the money? Who appointed you as chief board moderator anyway?
AyrshireScot wrote:
Vronsky wrote: heady says: Why is the Sunday Herald site so slow when every other site at precisely the same time, including more complex ones like the BBC, are working far faster?
This is very noticeable, and I\'ve mentioned it in posts myself. The Herald is allegedly run on a shoestring, which might explain poor performance from underpowered web servers - and a lot else? On the topic: it\'s a pity the church got involved with this, just as it\'s a pity when they get involved with anything. It always makes the water muddy, and positions become entrenched, making progress to any useful conclusion difficult. It\'s not so long since they opposed the use of anaesthesia for women in labour. The cardinal\'s statements will have at least two effects: some people will agree simply because they are Catholics, and others will disagree simply because they are not. Informed debate is the loser either way. Only one poster I can see mentions an indisputable risk of stem cell research: money from Big Pharma forcing the research agenda. We\'ve already seen this with the proliferation of bioscience research in Scotland, corrupting every academic institution from the Royal Society on downwards. Large cash contributions to New Labour by giants like Syngenta is probably a better explanation of Jim Devine\'s anxiety than any concern for the advancement of medical science. It\'s a vast and frightening subject. For some starter reading look here: http://tinyurl.com/3 4lxlc Or get Don\'t worry, it\'s safe to eat by Andrew Rowell - reviewed here: http://tinyurl.com/2 q6r8o No, I\'m not Andy Rowell.
Good points. The broader issues would be about ensuring appropriate funding for academic, fundamental research that is not directed by big-Pharma, and whose output is openly published and not patented. The research councils have long shifted to funding research with commercial application. Diseases of the Western world, such as cancer and heart disease, are well researched. But disease prevalent in the developing world, such as schistosomiasis or malaria, which in theory could be more easily treated, are under-researched precisely because treatments would have no patients able to pay high prices for them. Only fundamental research funded on humanitarian priorities stands much chance of developing treatments, as big-Pharma makes more money from affective mood disorders of the Western world than it would from curing such diseases.
So despite my 'silly (but at least well mannered) post' you agree with me then that it's all about the money? Who appointed you as chief board moderator anyway?
Posted by: Peter Thomson, Atheists have more fun! on 10:58am Sun 23 Mar 08
Easter - the Christian Churches' time for resurrecting and re-newing its covenant with God.
Does the good bishop talk about the the covenant, no he's talking about politics forgetting a couple of requirements his boss put up around 2,000 years ago, if you believe in the story: 'The new covenenant is this, love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and love your neighbour as yourself.'
Where in any of the Bishop's politicised rant is are the two key instructions of the New Covenant with God reflected?
To love your neighbour, as required by the good book, requires this to be unconditional of creed, belief or understanding. This rant coming from a church that condemns anyone who does not love their neighbour the way this church requires, i.e. condemning non catholics as non believers and everything else as a 'mortal sin'.
The debate on this issue is far too important to be led by this church and this person in Scotland. His position is compromised as soon as he speaks as all, even good catholics, are aware of the lies, cheating, murders and hypocrisy that underly his teaching.
I think his boss also made some comment about the danger of empty vessles.
Easter - the Christian Churches' time for resurrecting and re-newing its covenant with God.
Does the good bishop talk about the the covenant, no he's talking about politics forgetting a couple of requirements his boss put up around 2,000 years ago, if you believe in the story: 'The new covenenant is this, love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and love your neighbour as yourself.'
Where in any of the Bishop's politicised rant is are the two key instructions of the New Covenant with God reflected?
To love your neighbour, as required by the good book, requires this to be unconditional of creed, belief or understanding. This rant coming from a church that condemns anyone who does not love their neighbour the way this church requires, i.e. condemning non catholics as non believers and everything else as a 'mortal sin'.
The debate on this issue is far too important to be led by this church and this person in Scotland. His position is compromised as soon as he speaks as all, even good catholics, are aware of the lies, cheating, murders and hypocrisy that underly his teaching.
I think his boss also made some comment about the danger of empty vessles.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 11:00am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ross McLean[/bold] wrote:
Assuming this legislation goes ahead, which I think it will, and the research gets underway, it could very well lead to improvements in treatment for diseases like Alzheimers. I'm not saying it will lead to a 'cure,' but that it may lead to improvements in treatment. The question is: if (God forbid) the Bishop himself in future becomes afflicted with this horrible condition, will he refuse medical treatment? I am not trying to be nasty - I believe this is a fair question. Will he refuse treatment on principle? Or indeed if a member of his family - or indeed anyone in his congragation - gets the disease, will he ask them to refuse treatment which may alleviate their suffering? If he doesn't, I'm afraid his moral position is very dodgy. If he does, I'm afraid that tells us all we need to know about the limits of his compassion. [/quote] Hear Hear Ross,
My late mother was afflicted with dementia, this is a horrible, horrible ilness. If research like this can lead to better understanding and who knows a cure then go ahead.
People like the "good" cardinal can fek off for all I care on this issue, he is an irrelevance in the 21st century.
When the time comes. as Ross says, when he(or his ilk) or a member of his family is stricken, what'll be his atitude then? If it is himself then would he be deemed to be commiting suicide( a sin) rather than going fopr the life-saving cure. Aye right, he'' be a t the front of the queue along with the rest of the "religous" hypocrits
The "good" cardinal would be better off spending his energy on rooting out the child abusers in his church, but hey that doesn't get the same type of "positive" headlines does it?
Ross McLean wrote:
Assuming this legislation goes ahead, which I think it will, and the research gets underway, it could very well lead to improvements in treatment for diseases like Alzheimers. I'm not saying it will lead to a 'cure,' but that it may lead to improvements in treatment. The question is: if (God forbid) the Bishop himself in future becomes afflicted with this horrible condition, will he refuse medical treatment? I am not trying to be nasty - I believe this is a fair question. Will he refuse treatment on principle? Or indeed if a member of his family - or indeed anyone in his congragation - gets the disease, will he ask them to refuse treatment which may alleviate their suffering? If he doesn't, I'm afraid his moral position is very dodgy. If he does, I'm afraid that tells us all we need to know about the limits of his compassion.
Hear Hear Ross,
My late mother was afflicted with dementia, this is a horrible, horrible ilness. If research like this can lead to better understanding and who knows a cure then go ahead.
People like the "good" cardinal can fek off for all I care on this issue, he is an irrelevance in the 21st century.
When the time comes. as Ross says, when he(or his ilk) or a member of his family is stricken, what'll be his atitude then? If it is himself then would he be deemed to be commiting suicide( a sin) rather than going fopr the life-saving cure. Aye right, he'' be a t the front of the queue along with the rest of the "religous" hypocrits
The "good" cardinal would be better off spending his energy on rooting out the child abusers in his church, but hey that doesn't get the same type of "positive" headlines does it?
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 11:03am Sun 23 Mar 08
madme, Glasgow on 10:49am today
good post, and yes, agree that the Bishop has very right to voice his opinions and lobby
madme, Glasgow on 10:49am today
good post, and yes, agree that the Bishop has very right to voice his opinions and lobby
Posted by: Truthseeker, Lanarkshire on 11:08am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Strathturret[/bold] wrote:
What I'm saying is are you interested in my opinion on say ... dangerous dogs? I have no expertise on dangerous dogs. The cardinal has no expertise in medical research, so why are we discussing his views? A politician is elected. An RC churchman is representative of whom exactly? He is appointed by an autocratic church.[/quote] And exactly who, Strathturret, do (particularly, although not solely, Labour) politicians represent? On a number of occasions, I have written to my own "representative", Frank Roy, expressing my personal concern and viewpoint on a specific issue. On one occasion, he freely admitted that more people had contacted him in support of my standpoint than that of the government. However, being a typical NuLab "Yes-man", he voted with the government anyway (without any whip having to be imposed!). When I had the temerity to point out that he had been elected to represent his constituents rather than the party, I was was told that he didn't need me to teach him his job!!
I am not a member of the Church of Rome (to be accurate in terminology. The word "catholic" means "universal, which is why members of the Reformed churches can happily repeat the words of The Apostles' Creed), but I have been friendly with, and have met many more, members of the Roman clergy - from parish priest to arch-bishop - and have always found them much more ready to listen to the opinions of others than any politician with whom I have had dealings.
[bold]We live, at the present, not in a democracy, but in an elected dictatorship that becomes more totalitarian by the day![/bold]
Strathturret wrote:
What I'm saying is are you interested in my opinion on say ... dangerous dogs? I have no expertise on dangerous dogs. The cardinal has no expertise in medical research, so why are we discussing his views? A politician is elected. An RC churchman is representative of whom exactly? He is appointed by an autocratic church.
And exactly who, Strathturret, do (particularly, although not solely, Labour) politicians represent? On a number of occasions, I have written to my own "representative", Frank Roy, expressing my personal concern and viewpoint on a specific issue. On one occasion, he freely admitted that more people had contacted him in support of my standpoint than that of the government. However, being a typical NuLab "Yes-man", he voted with the government anyway (without any whip having to be imposed!). When I had the temerity to point out that he had been elected to represent his constituents rather than the party, I was was told that he didn't need me to teach him his job!!
I am not a member of the Church of Rome (to be accurate in terminology. The word "catholic" means "universal, which is why members of the Reformed churches can happily repeat the words of The Apostles' Creed), but I have been friendly with, and have met many more, members of the Roman clergy - from parish priest to arch-bishop - and have always found them much more ready to listen to the opinions of others than any politician with whom I have had dealings.
We live, at the present, not in a democracy, but in an elected dictatorship that becomes more totalitarian by the day! Posted by: Wullie on 11:09am Sun 23 Mar 08
Madmeat 10.49 makes a very valid point when he states that he ha
Comment | Read Comments (107)